Newspaper: Unfettered ‘citizen journalism’ too risky
Where do we even start with this one?
The Atlanta Journal Constitution writes in today’s paper, “the reality is it really isn’t journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse…Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people ‘journalists.’ This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a ‘citizen surgeon’ or someone who can read a law book is a ‘citizen lawyer.’“
The last time we checked, journalism isn’t a profession - like being a doctor or an attorney. Meaning, there is no test, no license, no education background that is required in order for one to become a journalist. David Hazinski, the author of this article, claims that citizen journalism leads to bad information in news stories and false reporting online. But, don’t ‘professional’ journalists make those same mistakes all the time? Of course they do.
Citizen journalism is an evolution in the field. It does not replace traditional media, but it adds a new presence in the media universe. In a nutshell here is what citizen journalism does: it empowers people from all over the world to play a more active role in how the news is covered, what news is covered and when it is covered. People like Hazinski are threatened by that. Citizen journalism diffuses power away from the established media - and that’s why he doesn’t like it.
But look, this always happens. We are sure that Hazinski had good intentions and is a fine faculty member at the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism, where he heads the Broadcast News department. But Hazinski should check his history. When television was first introduced, radio and print saw it as a novelty that would pass. Do you remember all the stories in 1997 about the Internet being a ‘fad’?
This is part of the march of technology, which has played a key role in journalism since Johannas Gutenberg’s movable type in 1440. With each new form of technology that has come since Gutenberg, journalism has changed. The Internet has now ushered in a new era of reporting, and like its predecessors, it’s here to stay.
Sphere: Related Content
6 Responses to “Newspaper: Unfettered ‘citizen journalism’ too risky”
Was it the AJC or a citizen journalist that screwed up the Richard Jewel story?
Comment made on December 13th, 2007 at 5:28 amSuggesting that “citizen” journalists be regulated is asinine, especially coming from someone closely identified with the “old media.”
What is worth considering is how ALL journalism could be held up to more outside scrutiny and, dare one say it, regulation. And especially how to do that inside the confines of the broad protections of the First Amendment.
The larger idea abroad in the land is to treat First Amendment protections as “institutional,” that is, to apply them to organizations of “the press” rather than as individual rights of citizens. Some of this has emerged during the discussions of a federal shield law and it also has a consonance with those who argue that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.
Full disclosure: I don’t know the author of this piece. I do teach journalism.
Comment made on December 13th, 2007 at 9:41 amWell, it’s Richard Jewell, not Jewel. I guess I don’t need a license to get the name right. I just wish many citizen “journalists” would be up-front about their goal: Pamphleteering. For their own agenda. It’s not against the law, but it would be an ethical first step.
Comment made on December 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pm[…] on Blogflict, we blogged about the David Hazinski article, and took a critical viewpoint. Many other bloggers joined in […]
Comment made on December 14th, 2007 at 5:03 am[…] a recap of bloggers posts from about a dozen different sites. Our original post was critical as well. Blogflict strongly believes there is a powerful role for citizen journalists as the MSM has spent […]
Comment made on December 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pmIt’s obvious that “shou” has not done his research or his due diligence on the Richard Jewell case. The police, not the AJC, “screwed up” the Richard Jewell story. The police, not the AJC, fingered him as the prime suspect initially. A reading of the FBI’s search warrant would clearly show why. The AJC reported what the police were investigating in what was an extremely hyper-competitive atmosphere when the world’s media were looking for any story during a rather mundane and poorly run Olympics.
The problem with citizen journalists is that there is no accountability. The AJC reporters who broke the story were accountable not only to their bosses and their readers, but to their peers in the industry. And, as the recent court decision in Atlanta demonstrates, their reporting was correct and accurately reflected the situation at the time. So-called citizen journalists have no such accountability and are only likely to contribute more and more egregious mistakes in an industry where speed, not accuracy, is now the Gospel according to the Internet. Citizen journalists are accountable only to themselves.
Any effort to regulate so-called citizen journalists or somehow certify them would be an exercise in futility and a mistake for the journalism community, such as it is. Let them do what they do. But do not put them in the same category as trained and seasoned journalists who are accountable to their news organizations or publications. Doing so would be a major mistake for a business that already has little credibility with the citizenry.
Comment made on December 16th, 2007 at 12:08 pmLeave a Comment